State v. James

Under the plain meanings of “reliable” and “authority,” the Court understood the phrase to mean a source, widely used within that community, whose propositions or opinions are trustworthy and deserving of the community’s reliance and acceptance.

Defendant appealed nine convictions for sexual crimes. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s allowance of the prosecutor to impeach his expert witness by reading from the Oregon Interviewing Guidelines, 3rd edition. On appeal, Defendant argued that his expert did not testify the guideline was a “reliable authority,” essential under OEC 706. In response, the State argued the expert stated the guideline “describe[d] proper forensic procedures” and conceded that child interviewers are supposed to follow it, therefore establishing a “reliable authority.” Under the plain meanings of “reliable” and “authority,” the Court understood the phrase to mean a source, widely used within that community, whose propositions or opinions are trustworthy and deserving of the community’s reliance and acceptance. The Court found the expert's additional testimony clearly established his belief that only the first two editions were reliable and authoritative and that child interviewers are not actually trained on the third edition. The Court held that the State failed to provide the necessary foundation for a reliable authority, the expert's testimony was critical to Defendant’s theory of the case and reading from the guidelines compromised the jury’s ability to fairly evaluate the expert’s credibility.  Reversed and remanded.